UB Freethinkers

So, we were wrong.

It turns out that after Hoffmann was unavailable and he refused Price, Craig did in fact send our side a list of people he would debate.

So we proposed three of them.

And he denied them.

Awesome.

At the moment it looks like the debate is going to fall through, since he won’t debate Price (our only available opponent) and no other Christian debater is available short-notice.  We’ll keep everyone updated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books

I’ve used Genbank before but I had no idea they had this

Mostly applied medical reading but they’ve got some more basic research kinds of things, too, like a guide to C. elegans

I found this disguised book advertisement in my subscriptions today.

It’s a pop sci introduction to neuroeconomics; I glanced it before and was undecided as to whether it would be worth reading but I heard it got good reviews.

Our room situation is FINALLY sorted out.  We start this Thursday.  Hope to see you there!

Found out about this on a blog I follow, Defense Tech

http://defensetech.org/2010/01/21/update-on-bible-scopes-us-will-remove-as-well/

Glad that the right decision was made (not only in the US but in a few other countries, New Zealand I’m sure of), saddened by the stark raving mad allegations of conspiracy you can see in the comments there. I’m sure they represent a fairly broad demo.

If you’re not familiar with the back story already, see here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

Rattan is being treated such that it can be used for prosthetic bone more durable than existing materials. It is now being tested on sheep in Italy. There is a strong possibility that this long sought-after solution could be put into human trials in the next five years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8446637.stm

uh huh huh huh

“wood” … “bones”

In light of the recent loss of our friend, this January 4th article by the philosopher Austin Dacey carries a bit more weight.  Here he writes after the death of his friend and fellow secularist:

Believers in the beyond often ask unbelievers how they can accept the prospect that death is the end. Some even confess they are motivated to believe by their wish to vanquish the grave. It is true that the atheist has nowhere to go in death but to the “mankind making/Bird beast and flower/Fathering and all humbling darkness,” as Dylan Thomas puts it in his astonishing poem to end all eulogies, “A Refusal to Mourn the Death, By Fire, Of a Child in London.”

This non-destination makes every death an infinitely greater loss, and makes unmitigated grief the only appropriate response. In this, only the secular way of death fully honors the dead, where “better place” platitudes betray him. Thomas’ paradoxically titled “Refusal to Mourn” is in fact the refusal to mitigate grief, to paper over the universe’s forever-loss of singular person in guaze-promises of eternity: “I shall not murder/The mankind of her going with a grave truth.”

Yes, dying may be harder for the atheist. But what I cannot understand, and reject totally, is the further claim that the life stopped short of eternity is thereby robbed of sense or worth: If it all comes to an end, what’s it all for? The first thing to observe about this existential anxiety is that we can’t resolve it just by postulating an eternal afterlife. Consider the sorts of good things that might possibly await us in paradise: knowing and loving other persons (including God), being known and loved, apprehending truth, experiencing beauty (and, in the afterlife of some, fine food, drink, and other sensual delights). These goods worth wanting in the next world are goods that we already have in this one—things like love, knowledge, beauty, and pleasure (even praising an Almighty!). If a life there is worth having, then a life here is worth having. Every treasure laid up in heaven has been stolen from Earth, and the joys of paradise are parasitic on the joys of the world.

Yes, having more joy is better than having less, all else being equal. And that is why death is a loss. It takes away the possibility of participating in any goods whatever. But that is not the same as showing them to have never been goods at all. When our participation in a good is cut short, we may wish it could go on, but the wishing is a sign that it was worth pursuing after all.

Amen.

During disasters and crises, many religious organizations do spectacular work to help victims and distribute aid.  However, some do use the opportunity to conduct overt proselytization, and retain some amount of donations for “operating costs” that go towards other religious business — something we secularists tend to frown on.

To avoid funding groups like that and to give the non-religious a way to be sure the money they donate is going only to secular charities, the Center For Inquiry created SHARE, Skeptic and Humanist Aid and Relief Effort.  It’s a humanitarian fund that channels donations only to secular relief organizations.  No money is retained for greedy and dishonest “operating costs” — 100% of all funds donated go onward to the selected secular organization.

They just announced their campaign for Haiti, which will direct funds to the spectacular Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières.  DWB/MSF has been extensively involved in Haiti for decades, and as such was immediately poised to offer help nationwide, from the moment the earthquake struck.

Go Here to donate!

Photo courtesy of The Spectrum

(Edit:  Since we’re drawing heavy traffic from search engine queries for Nick’s name, we’re including this link to the Buffalo News Article about the accident, for anyone looking for more information)

Early this morning, our SISH council coordinator, supporter, and friend Nicholas Orrange died in a car accident in Amherst.  He was a self-proclaimed existentialist and agnostic, and he lived his life proudly as such.

Nick was an incredibly generous and helpful representative and friend to us, a selfless person who you could always so clearly see — every single time you spoke with him — was thrilled simply to be a human being among human beings.  The look on his face alone always expressed an exuberance for life and for other people — an outlook we would all do well to learn from.

He’ll be missed, that’s for certain.

Comments and condolences can be left over at The Spectrum, and will be shared with his family.

Now go hug somebody.  Tell someone you love them.  This is a short, sweet trip we’re all on.  Enjoy it together.

It’s not about peace.  It’s about patriarchy and power — and demanding submission to it.

British woman ‘arrested in Dubai after being raped’

The woman, a Muslim of Pakistani descent, was celebrating her engagement to her 44-year-old boyfriend, and was allegedly attacked when she passed out in a hotel lavatory.

Despite approaching police about the attack, she was arrested after admitting to “illegal drinking” outside licensed premises as well as having sexual intercourse outside marriage. Her fiancé was also charged with the same offences.

The couple from London are now reportedly on bail and understood to be awaiting trial after having their passports confiscated. Should they be found guilty, they could face up to six years in jail.

The woman, who is said to have accepted her boyfriend’s marriage proposal during a three-day break, admitted drinking too much alcohol as they celebrated at Dubai Marina’s Address Hotel. The waiter is then said to have followed her into the toilets and raped her while she was in a state of semi-consciousness.

After her fiancé found out about the attack, they contacted police, but they were questioned about breaking the country’s strict rules, which contain elements of Sharia law.

Don’t forget: Every time you fill up your car, you’re funding this — in Dubai and elsewhere. (Not to mention actual, modern-day slavery as well.)

In case you hadn’t heard about the recent horrific attacks, you can read about them here:

Buffalo Woman Stabbed In Eye In Gay-Bashing Incident

and

Attackers At Galleria Accused of Hate Crime

A “Take Back The Night” is being organized on Friday, January 15th by our friends at OUTspoken for Equality (who we joined up with in February of last year to chase off the Westboro Baptist Church). Join the Facebook Event Page if you’d like, the event is starting at 7pm in Days Park, between Allen and Cottage streets.  Here’s the info:

Two well-publicized homophobic attacks occurred on New Years. Others go unreported or under-reported far too often.

Enough is enough. We are encouraging as many as possible to rally at Days Park on Friday, January 15 at 7 PM to take back our city from bigots.

http://maps.google.com/maps/place?ftid=0×89d3125482388e47:0xda3a0e71a44b483b&q=days+park+buffalo+ny&hl=en&ei=j09HS5qBJ6CMNZ_riY4E&sll=42.898454,-78.880119&sspn=0.003875,0.006695&ie=UTF8&ll=42.901614,-78.883467&spn=0,0&t=h&z=17&iwloc=near

We might then march along the sidewalks of Allen Street to Main Street depending on how many people are involved.

If you are able, please bring candles, and if you are also willing, please wear rainbow and/or hot pink items. We want to be as noticeable as possible.

More details will come soon.
http://www.outspokenforequality.org/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/OUTspoken-for-Equality/26659417042

If you can at all possibly make it, I encourage all of our members to attend.  Crimes like this simply don’t go unanswered in Buffalo.  RSVP at UBFreethinkers (at) gmail (dot) com or on Facebook if you’d like, we’ll all meet up beforehand.

…and censors.

More comments from Kenny over at the ReasonableFaith.org (Dr. Craig’s site and message boards):

What’s interesting now is that you guys are doing damage control after I caught you guys lying by now suggesting that Dr. Craig didn’t do good in said debates. Honestly, the UB Liars are as shallow as they come.

and

BTW I deleted the forum link [from his forum post to our response]. Something tells me you guys are doing this to gain attention. I wouldn’t want to appease you guys.

So much for an open discussion on the issue.  The faith-based over-moderating and censoring their often hermetically-sealed message boards?  Not too surprised.  We delete nothing.

You’ll notice though, I never went so far as to call Dr. Craig a coward, and never would (I believe I used “selective intellectual courage”). Censorship IS cowardice though.  Kenny, for your own sake, keep that in mind the next time you flail about like this — especially if you’re going to go as far as to call us inept, dishonest, and slander us as liars.

Likewise, saying “you guys are doing this to gain attention” works in any situation, and is just so much easier than addressing the actual argument – and just maybe bringing yourself to find a bit of fault with a famous defender of your worldview.  I know, it can be uncomfortable to do at first, with the tingling and all.  When I first realized that Hitchens and Dawkins can be assholes at times, and that I sometimes don’t agree with all of their tactics or points, I cried for a week.

It’s not at all about attention, but it has a great deal to do with frustration.  We’ve been forced to waltz with Dr. Craig’s proclivities for a year now.  Like I said — it’s become absurd.

Now, should they be available, we may finally have an opponent that he approves of.  However, the greater point remains: With someone of Dr. Craig’s caliber and expected confidence, it shouldn’t have been this hard.  If he’s so certain that the resurrection of his christ did indeed occur, his willingness to argue for it shouldn’t at all rest on who his opponent is.

Next, onward.  Damage control?  I was explaining our reasoning because I honestly find fault with your excuse that Craig should avoid our available opponents because he’s “roasted” them before.  I said specifically that we hadn’t heard anything about the other debates, except for the one with Price, since one of our acquaintances had seen or heard of it when it happened years ago.  Maybe you’re correct and it was a roast!  Just maybe Ken!  But…

…I doubt everyone agrees.  ”Roasted” is individually subjective, and extremely relative to which side you talk to — I guarantee it.  That’s why our information from the godless side was that Price won (in great part to his rhetorical skills charming the audience, specifically).  We both know the attitudes of an audience after debates on religious issues — split down the middle, always.

“But he already beat those guys!” is thus a worthless excuse when someone is skirting opponents, even if it’s someone you look up to and respect.  It works for boxing, but not for debating.  Notice that we haven’t said Craig is avoiding these fellows “because HE was roasted by THEM!”  It’s just not a sound argument when talking about a debate on issues like these.  Get over it.

And don’t fear an open argument on the point.